3 ms·

You fail to realize that these "tools" are ugly hacks to make HTML do things it's clearly not well suited to do. Why continue to struggle with a flawed platform

by algore 16y ago

You fail to realize that these "tools" are ugly hacks to make HTML do things it's clearly not well suited to do. Why continue to struggle with a flawed platform? > You keep saying things that make no sense in context. In what context is that? I'm looking around, I'm seeing movement by Microsoft, Apple, and Google to limited-purpose simplified computers with app stores built in. I'm seeing developers actually able to sell software again. I'm seeing rich, beautiful interfaces that are responsive and smooth. I'm seeing voice, camera, accelerometer, and GPS integration. And I'm seeing it in native software TODAY. It works now, it's not beta, and it's making money. Tell me where I'm wrong? Can you hack together a way to do all this in JS? Maybe, but it's unreliable, and it's years away from being comparable. Sure, you can wait 2 years until it's figured out, by then it will be outdated again anyway. I think you're very comfortable writing your web apps, it's something you understand and you're good at it, and naturally you're resisting change. But the industry is not going to stop changing because you're good at CSS hacks to make rounded corners on div blocks and you just wish we'd keep doing it that way because it's easy for you.

jasonlotito 16y ago
> I'm looking around, I'm seeing movement by Microsoft, Apple, and Google to limited-purpose simplified computers with app stores built in. I'm seeing developers actually able to sell software again. I'm seeing rich, beautiful interfaces that are responsive and smooth. I'm seeing voice, camera, accelerometer, and GPS integration. And I'm seeing it in native software TODAY. It works now, it's not beta, and it's making money. Tell me where I'm wrong? Your not. However, I haven't argued against this. > You fail to realize that these "tools" are ugly hacks to make HTML do things it's clearly not well suited to do. Well, good thing they aren't using HTML then. > In what context is that? In the context of the article. PhoneGap let's you create native software but using technology like HTML and JS that hooks into Apple's (and others) existing API. More importantly, Apple uses XML for it's UI as well, so the difference between HTML and Apple's own XML format for it's UI is negligible. > and naturally you're resisting change. The industry is changing from desktop TO web-based. Your cherished MS, Apple, and Google agree with this as well, as you can see by their plans to not only support, but promote these types of applications. And, in this case, I can either follow the lead of Apple, MS, Google, and Mozilla, or take the advice of some nobody random commenter with a stick up his ass. Maybe you can explain how these companies are wrong?
- algore 16y ago
  Ha, I stick up my ass. I would hope you and everyone else here has already seen this, but let me remind you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCvLTlQWT6A&t=4m30s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCvLTlQWT6A&t=4m30s The entire 1.5hr interview is worth watching, but starting at the 4:30 mark and watch it for about 20 minutes (you'll have to find parts 5 6 and 7 in youtube). This was in May 2007. The first iPhone was announced in Jan 2007, and wasn't even for sale yet until June. And it wasn't until June that Jobs announced that the iPhone would be releasing an SDK for 3rd party apps. Listen to what BOTH of them say about rich client experiences. Keep in mind that Apple was already working on the tablet at this point, earlier in the video the lady asks Steve about any new risky paradigm shifting devices and Steve says "I can't talk about it". Now we know it was obviously the iPad. Then and now, the two biggest software/technology companies in the world don't even see it being realistic to run apps in the browser, at least apps of any quality that people would want. They BOTH see enormous opportunities in rich clients and new human interfaces. Jobs spells it out: rich clients with internet services in the background. This is before the iPhone SDK was announced! These guys are thinking about touch, voice, camera, kinect, and they see NO WAY it can happen in a browser. They've spent millions in R&D, and they see rich clients. You see a free JS library and think the rich client is dead! Laughable. Gates and Jobs are crystal clear what THEIR view is, and they've been executing it through the products they're releasing. So I don't know where you get the idea that their objective is to promote webapps. Try listening to other people sometime, you might learn something from a random nobody commenter.

by algore 16y ago

jasonlotito 16y ago

> I'm looking around, I'm seeing movement by Microsoft, Apple, and Google to limited-purpose simplified computers with app stores built in. I'm seeing developers actually able to sell software again. I'm seeing rich, beautiful interfaces that are responsive and smooth. I'm seeing voice, camera, accelerometer, and GPS integration. And I'm seeing it in native software TODAY. It works now, it's not beta, and it's making money. Tell me where I'm wrong? Your not. However, I haven't argued against this. > You fail to realize that these "tools" are ugly hacks to make HTML do things it's clearly not well suited to do. Well, good thing they aren't using HTML then. > In what context is that? In the context of the article. PhoneGap let's you create native software but using technology like HTML and JS that hooks into Apple's (and others) existing API. More importantly, Apple uses XML for it's UI as well, so the difference between HTML and Apple's own XML format for it's UI is negligible. > and naturally you're resisting change. The industry is changing from desktop TO web-based. Your cherished MS, Apple, and Google agree with this as well, as you can see by their plans to not only support, but promote these types of applications. And, in this case, I can either follow the lead of Apple, MS, Google, and Mozilla, or take the advice of some nobody random commenter with a stick up his ass. Maybe you can explain how these companies are wrong?

algore 16y ago
Ha, I stick up my ass. I would hope you and everyone else here has already seen this, but let me remind you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCvLTlQWT6A&t=4m30s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCvLTlQWT6A&t=4m30s The entire 1.5hr interview is worth watching, but starting at the 4:30 mark and watch it for about 20 minutes (you'll have to find parts 5 6 and 7 in youtube). This was in May 2007. The first iPhone was announced in Jan 2007, and wasn't even for sale yet until June. And it wasn't until June that Jobs announced that the iPhone would be releasing an SDK for 3rd party apps. Listen to what BOTH of them say about rich client experiences. Keep in mind that Apple was already working on the tablet at this point, earlier in the video the lady asks Steve about any new risky paradigm shifting devices and Steve says "I can't talk about it". Now we know it was obviously the iPad. Then and now, the two biggest software/technology companies in the world don't even see it being realistic to run apps in the browser, at least apps of any quality that people would want. They BOTH see enormous opportunities in rich clients and new human interfaces. Jobs spells it out: rich clients with internet services in the background. This is before the iPhone SDK was announced! These guys are thinking about touch, voice, camera, kinect, and they see NO WAY it can happen in a browser. They've spent millions in R&D, and they see rich clients. You see a free JS library and think the rich client is dead! Laughable. Gates and Jobs are crystal clear what THEIR view is, and they've been executing it through the products they're releasing. So I don't know where you get the idea that their objective is to promote webapps. Try listening to other people sometime, you might learn something from a random nobody commenter.